Human Studies

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 11–26 | Cite as

Obstetric Ultrasound and the Technological Mediation of Morality: A Postphenomenological Analysis

Research Paper

Abstract

This article analyzes the moral relevance of technological artifacts and its possible role in ethical theory, by taking the postphenomenological approach that has developed around the work of Don Ihde into the domain of ethics. By elaborating a postphenomenological analysis of the mediating role of ultrasound in moral decisions about abortion, the article argues that technologies embody morality and help to constitute moral subjectivity. This technological mediation of the moral subject is subsequently addressed in terms of Michel Foucault’s ethical position, in which ethics is about actively co-shaping one’s moral subjectivity. Integrating Foucauldian ethics and postphenomenology, the article argues that the technological mediation of moral subjectivity should be at the heart of an ethical approach that takes the moral dimensions of technology seriously.

Keywords

Ethics of technology Philosophy of technology Postphenomenology Michel Foucault Obstetric ultrasound 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This article was written with financial support of NWO, the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (personal grant for innovational research, “veni” track).

References

  1. Boucher, J. (2004). Ultrasound: A window to the womb? Obstetric ultrasound and the abortion rights debate. Journal of Medical Humanities, 25, 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. De Vries, G. (1993). Gerede twijfel: over de rol van de medische ethiek in Nederland. Amsterdam: De Balie.Google Scholar
  3. Dorrestijn, S. (2004). Bestaanskunst in de technologische cultuur: over de ethiek van door techniek beïnvloed gedrag. Master’s thesis. University of Twente, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  4. Foucault, M. (1984a). L’usage des plaisirs. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  5. Foucault, M. (1984b). Le souci de soi. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  6. Foucault, M. (1997). Ethics: Subjectivity and truth In P. Rabinow (Ed.), New York: New Press.Google Scholar
  7. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Heidegger, M. (1969). Discourse on thinking (trans: Anderson, J.M. & Freund, E.H.). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  9. Hottois, G. (1996). Symbool en techniek. Kampen/Kapellen: Kok Agora/Pelckmans.Google Scholar
  10. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Ihde, D. (1998). Expanding hermeneutics. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Landsman, G. H. (1998). Reconstructing motherhood in the age of “perfect” babies: Mothers of infants and toddlers with disabilities. Signs, 24, 69–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (trans: Smith, C.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Mitchell, L. (2001). Baby’s first picture: Ultrasound and the politics of fetal subjects. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  15. O’Leary, T. (2002). Foucault. The art of ethics. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  16. Oaks, L. (2000). Smoke-filled wombs and fragile fetuses: The social politics of fetal representation. Signs, 26, 63–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Petchesky, R. P. (1987). Fetal images: The power of visual culture in the politics of reproduction. Feminist Studies, 13, 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rapp, R. (1998). Refusing prenatal diagnosis: The meanings of bioscience in a multicultural world. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 23, 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sandelowski, M. (1994). Separate, but less unequal: Fetal ultrasonography and the transformation of expectant mother/fatherhood. Gender and Society, 8, 230–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smith, A. (2003). Do you believe in ethics? Latour and Ihde in the trenches of the Science Wars (Or: Watch out, Latour, Ihde’s got a gun). In D. Ihde & E. Selinger (Eds.), Chasing technoscience: Matrix for materiality. (pp. 182–194). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Google Scholar
  21. Stormer, N. (2000). Prenatal space. Signs, 26, 109–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Trouw (2006, 11 December). Abortus om hazenlip komt voor-onderzoeken of echo’s leiden tot meer zwangerschapsafbrekingen. (newspaper article).Google Scholar
  23. Verbeek, P. P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. University Park: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Verbeek, P. P. (2006a). The morality of things—A postphenomenological inquiry. In E. Selinger (Ed.), Postphenomenology: A critical companion to Ihde. (pp. 117–130). New Albany: SUNY Press. Google Scholar
  25. Verbeek, P. P. (2006b). Ethiek en technologie: moreel actorschap en subjectiviteit in een technologische cultuur. Ethische Perspectieven, 16, 267–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zechmeister, I. (2001). Foetal images: The power of visual technology in antenatal care and the implications for women’s reproductive freedom. Health Care Analysis, 9, 387–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations